Skip to main content

View Diary: I don't ever again want to hear the words "accidental shooting". (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  and on the second day (6+ / 0-)

    of classes she learned torts were civil law claims and not criminal law charges and each are subject to their own distinct rules./snark

    Since criminal charges are statutory,  one must consult the state laws on homicide to see what that state has decided to include.  Kentucky has a reckless homicide statute.  I doubt a Kentucky prosecutor would go there, I could see it being pursued in some  areas where majority ideas on guns, gun control, proper ages for children being left with guns are different, say a more liberal California area where the state negligent manslaugter definition is broader than Kentucky's, though similar.  The analysis that it is most likely that the negligent supervision and/or child endangerment statutes would be the best charges to make something stick is spot on. But I can see a local prosecutor where many kids are given guns and go hunting at a young age, just not pursuing anything.  The jury pool is probably going to be sympathetic to the parents.

    •  well yes, but some things can be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      torts and crimes, can't they?

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 01, 2013 at 09:20:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the same acts may (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority, LilithGardener

        be the basis for a civil claim by some individual or legal entity damaged by the act, a suit for damages between two private parties, and a criminal charge brought by the state (government) to defend the public's interest in stopping crimes, but a defense to one is rarely a defense to the other in the sense that your quote of your friend implies.

        The parent's liability that  prosecutor would be considereing, would not be a vicarious liability for the son's actions, which the torl rule addresses, but their own culpability for negligence rising to the level of recklessness ( absolute lack of care for the consequences of their actions) in leaving a loaded gun in the hands of a five year old, failing to supervise his use of the gun to make sure that it was unloaded after last use, not where he could get it to play with it if a parent was out of the room, etc.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site